V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an agriculturist.
(2.) CERTAIN agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut. In a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Additional District Judge IV, Meerut, by his order dated May 28, 1990, enhanced the amount of compensation. Against the order of the Additional District Judge, the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow, filed First Appeal No. Nil of 1990 in this court and a Bench, on September 12, 1990, passed the following order : "Issue notice returnable within six weeks through Registered A/D Post. Until further orders, the realisation of the amount awarded by the court below shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposits with the court below half of the enhanced amount of compensation together with the costs awarded within a period of two months. On the amount being so deposited, half of the amount will be allowed to be withdrawn without security and remaining half only on furnishing security. (Sd.) N. N. M., (Sd.) C. P. M.andnbsp; 12-9-1990." andnbsp; The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut Circle, vide his letter dated October 16, 1990, addressed to the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, had requested the additional District Judge for payment under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the outstanding income-tax demand to the tune of Rs. 11,32,531 in respect of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1987-88. It is against this action of the income-tax authorities taken under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act that the present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated October 16, 1990, passed under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, addressed to the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the amount which has been deposited under the orders of the High Court dated September 12, 1990, does not belong to the petitioner and thus the request made by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 226(4) of the Act is liable to be quashed and no action should be taken on that request for transferring the amount to the Income-tax Department.
(3.) AT the admission stage, Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal has appeared on behalf of the Income-tax Department and as the questions raised in the present writ petition are purely legal, learned counsel for both the parties have prayed that the present writ petition be disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has first urged that as the Income-tax Department has given no notice under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter described as the "Act"), the entire proceedings are invalid and are liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention on a decision of this court in the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. IAC of I. T. [1990] 181 ITR 351. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, urged before us that Section 226(3) requires the giving of notice in writing by the Income-tax Officer while Section 226(4) only requires that the Income-tax Officer has to apply to the court in whose custody there is money belonging to the assessee. It has been urged that there is thus no requirement of giving of notice under Section 226(4) of the Act.;